St. Leoba

660 Words2 Pages

Who is responsible for what happens to the natural environment? When disaster affects humanity’s environment, regardless of whether it is at the hand of nature or man, people look to authority figures for answers. Unsurprisingly, this concept also holds true for religion. Such was the case for Christianity in Europe during the eighth century. Rudolf, Monk of Fulda’s narrative of St. Leoba, recounts natural and unnatural events which impacted the town, and as the abbess, St. Leoba held the responsibility for the followers’ well-being. This connection between humanity and their different surroundings reflects the literary theory ecocriticism. Rudolf, Monk of Fulda’s narrative The Life of St. Leoba conveys the ecocritical components: built environment, …show more content…

Commenting on the rivers in the area, he says: “It received this name from the clearness and sweetness of the water there, which was better than any other in that land” (107). Though the area sounds serene; as evoked through Rudolf’s imagery, this natural area was to house two man-made structures: monasteries. These monasteries: “…one for men, the other for women” were “both surrounded by strong and lofty walls and provided with all the necessities that prudence could devise” (107). The Christian church purposefully changed the natural surroundings of Wimbourne to meet the needs of the Christian faith. Furthermore, these monasteries had the understanding that “any woman who wished to renounce the world and enter the cloister did so on the understanding that she would never leave it” (107). Therefore, not only did the church take control over the natural environment, but took total control over those in the built environment as well. Rudolf further proves; albeit unknowingly, the opposition to the outside environment: “Furthermore, when it was necessary to conduct the business of the monastery and send for something outside, the superior of the community spoke through a window and only from there did she make decisions and arrange what was needed” (107). Being kept within the constructs of the monastery was a life in which St. Leoba thrived. She revered being cloistered away in the …show more content…

Leoba moves to Germany, Rudolf mentions a conflict that gives us an insight into how St. Leoba and her connection with God influenced the agrarian ecology. An outsider to the church’s built environment, a crippled begging girl who fornicates, dumps her baby’s body into a pool that the town created from the river. She not only commits an unnatural act of God, but in disposing of her baby in the water, connects the unnatural to the natural environment. In doing this, Rudolf condemns her: “In this way she added crime to crime, for she not only followed fleshly sin by murder, but also combined murder with the poisoning of the water” (110). As an agrarian society, the river was a tool for survival, and the spoiling of the water would in turn “murder” the townspeople by making them sick or prevent them from “grinding corn” for sustenance (111). Due to the town laying blame on the women of the monastery, St. Leoba, utilizes her adapt knowledge and relationship with God to find the truth. After extensive prayer and penance, St. Leoba calls to Jesus and: “Immediately after she had said this, that wretched little woman…seemed to be surrounded by flames, and, calling out the name of the abbess, confessed to the crime she committed” (111). In doing this, St. Leoba regained control over the outrage at the poisoning of the water, connecting her relationship to God with and the environment. Being able to incite a miracle as this only further established St. Leoba’s position as

Open Document